Talk:Southern Front (Syrian rebel group)

Size of the group?

This recent ref indicates that the group has far less than 58 factions involved. [1] David O. Johnson (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"Relation with the FSA"...?

The "Nature of the Front; Relations with the FSA" section is problematic because it assumes the FSA is a coherent organization when it is in fact more of a banner for independent groups to identify with. Several attempts have been made to organize the various FSA groups across the country under a single military structure; this has failed. Bulbajer (talk) 03:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Not sure how to address this though. -Darouet (talk) 14:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

FSA is a group of defected Syrian officers and soldiers, and considering their proclaimed purposes (both this definition and those purposes are clearly stated in our Wikipedia article) they can, I think, aply be called a rebel army or armed rebellion group. If Bulbajer here says: “it assumes the FSA is a coherent organization …(etc.)” he speaks only for himself, Wiki does not state nor assume that. Wiki states, based on sources, that FSA is an organization with a leadership. If Bulbajer or whoever disagrees with that: fine, but then you’ll have to change that in article FSA, and ofcourse corroborate that with sources. Until then, we reason from what is actually stated in our article FSA.
So, I don’t see any problem with our actual section Southern Front of the Free Syrian Army#Nature of the Front; relation with FSA. We can only assume any group to be part of FSA as soon as any (reliable) source states that it is part of FSA. In the case of ‘Southern Front of the Free Syrian Army’, no member of the Wikipedia community has yet (as far as I can see) come up with a source stating ‘Southern Front’ is part of FSA, so quite simply we cannot assume it to be part of FSA (in spite indeed of its suggestive name). And therefore, that is what our article Southern Front of the Free Syrian Army correctly states, presently. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC) [ Please, see my updated opinion below in the new discussion section: ‘Revert/change article's title...’. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC) ]

Agreed, the FSA is not an organization with a unified structure, but an umbrella group of rebel groups who choose to be part of it. If the criteria for being part of the FSA is being part of the Syrian Revolutionary Command Council[explanation added later(5:45), after CB asked for it 5:44] then the Islamic Front is part of the FSA, but they clearly rejected the label and the Southern Front accepted it. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Please: what is SRCC? --Corriebertus (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is an official statement of the Free Syrian Army. The signatory groups include the Yarmouk Army, the Southern Storm Brigade, the Muhajerin and Ansar Brigade, the 24th Infantry Division, and the Division of Decisiveness, all part of the Southern Front. Therefore it's safe to assume that the Southern Front is the FSA. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

No, that given FSA statement does also not justify--contrary to what abcdef contends--for Wikipedia that SF is part of FSA. That some participants/groups of SF are member of FSA does not imply that the (larger) coalition SouthernFront, containing those same groups, is as such also part or member of FSA. (And please, mr/mrs abcdef: add new statements, arguments etc., at the bottom of a discussion, below posts already given. Otherwise we can't read a discussion in the real, actual, chronological order. I've had to make two corrections in that respect, concerning your addings of 05:45.) SF "accepting" a label--as abcdef stated earlier, 05:39--does also not prove (for us, Wikipedia) that FSA accepted SF as member and that therefore SF is part of FSA. --Corriebertus (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC) [ See also my updated opinion below, in new discuss. section Revert/change article's title.... --Corriebertus (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)]

If that's the case I suppose the FSA only has 3 member groups? The BBC article states that only the Northern Storm Brigade and the Liwa Ahrar Souriya are the member groups of the Supreme Military Council (Syria), the Syrian Martyrs' Brigade is defunct. But it's not the case. As previously stated many times before, the FSA is not a unified military organization but a loose coalition of groups who call themselves the FSA. It does not require approval from the higher command because no such thing exists in reality. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Any Syrian rebel group

Editor abcdef tries to ignore and deny (10 May, 11 May: “FSA is not … but a …”) the definition of Free Syrian Army that Wikipedia gives in the FSA article: FSA being a group, founded by deserting Syrian officers, having a program and leadership (command structure, Supreme Military Council (SMC)).
FSA then being an organized group – as Wikipedia clearly states, and the Wikipedia contributors therefore are bound to live by until further notice – a rebel group can only be member of FSA if FSA acknowledges it to be part of FSA. Very simple indeed, I’d venture to believe. SouthernFront (SF) not meeting that requirement, at least no referenced source stating that SF does, we have to simply conclude that SF cannot be considered in and by Wikipedia as to be part or member of FSA. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC) [ Please see also my updated opinion below, in new discuss. section Revert/change article's title.... --Corriebertus (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC) ]

Fair point. Perhaps we should focus on updating the Free Syrian Army article first. See here. Bulbajer (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of the definition of the FSA most media sources have referred to the SF as the "FSA in the south", plus the media account of the Southern Front itself have claimed to be part of the FSA, and the SMC acknowledged that in the RFS statement. So we can't simply use our original research and say that they're not the FSA when the overwhelming majority of the sources state otherwise. Editor abcdef (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Please, see also my updated opinion below, in the new discussion section: ‘Revert/change article's title...’.
@Editor abcdef: I did not "say that they're not the FSA", so please don't twist my words and then make a false accusation (of original research) on them. What I did say, and still am saying, is: we (= Wikipedia) haven't a source saying they are, therefore we (Wikipedia) should not consider them to be (and not write in our articles that they are).
“The overwhelming majority of the sources state” that SF is (part of) FSA, you say. Could you just name three of that ‘overwhelming majority’?
You say also that SMC "acknowledged" something concerning SF (it's not clear to me what they acknowledged). If it is relevant in this discussion: could you show us that SMC statement? --Corriebertus (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC) @Bulbajer (etc.): This section started(29Feb) with discussing what FSA is or is not. I don’t see why that should be discussed, as long as Free Syrian Army is clear about that. Discussions for changing that current Wikipedia definition/understanding of FSA should anyway ofcourse take place on Talk:Free Syrian Army. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Change the article's name to: "Southern Front"

Seeing it is only the BBC who call them "Southern Front of the Free Syrian Army", saying "...the coalition known as the Southern Front of the Free Syrian Army", without corroborating by whom they are "known" as such, nor why, it seems best to me to change the article's name to: "Southern Front" sec. --Corriebertus (talk) 05:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC) [Please, see my updated opinion below, in the new discussion section: ‘Revert/change article's title...’. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)]

Nope, not only the BBC:

• Al Nusrah Front, Free Syrian Army battle Assad regime for UN Hill in southern Syria Editor abcdef (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand from that linked article on website 'The Long War' that mr/mrs abcdef just gave, that 'SF(FSA)' consider themselves as part of FSA. That is not enough though: we'd need a statement of FSA saying that this 'Southern Front' is accepted by them as part of FSA. And if Joscelyn, the author of that article, (also, just like BBC) assumes SF to be part of FSA, he'd also have to corroborate that. Two (or more) (Western) sources suggesting without apparent ground that SF is part of FSA is not enough for a neutral Wikipedia to say (or suggest in an article title) that SF is part of FSA. --Corriebertus (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC) [Please, see my updated opinion below, in new discuss. section. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)]

I know Twitter is not usually considered a reliable source in Wikipedia but the official Southern Front spokesman stated that they're part of the FSA:

"This is the official account for the Free Syrian Army Southern Front Spokesman Major Issam Al Reis"

https://twitter.com/south_front_sy?lang=en

Editor abcdef (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Please, see my updated opinion below, in the new discussion section: ‘Revert/change article's title...’. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Revert/change article's title into ‘Southern Front (Syria)’ or ‘Southern Front (Syrian rebel group)’

This article was started 13Nov2014 (editor KajMetz) as: “Southern Front (Syrian rebel group)”, with three referenced sources. Ref 2 at that time (Carnegie) and ref 3 (Huffington) don’t state that Southern Front (SF) is part of Free Syrian Army (FSA) but say that a former FSA unit or “the largest FSA units in the south” joined the SF.

But ref 1 then (SyrianObserver,14Feb2014; today still ref 1) suggested without source that SF were “affiliated with the FSA”. That apparently led KajMetz to state in the Infobox(13Nov2014) that SF is “part of FSA”. But Wikipedia could not base that conclusion on that SyrObserver’s report. Because, firstly: ‘affiliated with…’ is a vague, multi-interpretable term, which’ exact meaning in some context must always be deduced from who is saying it and in what context. But, secondly: apart from the vagueness of the statement in itself, SyrObserverFeb2014 is totally vague about who was stating that SF would be “affiliated with…”. On 13Nov2014 therefore – nor at any later point – Wikipedia simply ought not to have stated in its article (or Infobox) that “SF is part of FSA” because we had no identified source saying so.

On 11Dec2014 (editor D. Johnson), a ref 9 was added in the article, to a BBC report of 9 Dec 2014 (present ref 16), which refers to a “coalition of 58 groups … known as the Southern Front of the Free Syrian Army”. I think we can agree to the assumption of D. Johnson that this BBC report refers to the same SF that we already knew in our article, but I think that we should not accept and copy that BBC’s claim of that SF to be “known as the SF of the FSA”, because that claim is uncorroborated: BBC doesn’t tell us who knew them as: ’…of the FSA’. At that time (10Dec2014), none of the other sources we already referenced in our article ‘knew’ or claimed SF as to be part of FSA…though ofcourse Wikipedia itself referred to them as “part of FSA”—but did so unfoundedly, as I argued above.

This is not an irrelevant or minor detail: debates are running about how big, how strong FSA really is: see the current lead section and Infobox of article Free Syrian Army and its §7 ‘Questions of existence, combativeness and structure’. In that respect, each claim in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia saying some (string of) rebel group(s) is part of FSA would add to the perceived strength of FSA, and should therefore be well-founded or not be stated at all (see also Talk:Free Syrian Army#Memberships of FSA).

On 28May2015, editor NullaTaciti changed the article’s title to: ‘Southern Front of the Free Syrian Army’. He did not really motivate that change. If he was simply copying the statement from the Infobox: “part of FSA” to the article’s title supposing that statement to be correct, I’ve argued above that that Infbx-statement had never yet been correctly corroborated. (NulTac did mention some (side) arguments, but: what did/does he consider ‘cumbersome’ in the old title? Which ‘renamed links’ did he consider ‘required’ and what problems did/does that cause?) I therefore now challenge that page move (= title change), and propose either returning to the old title, or, preferably, choosing the shorter title ‘Southern Front (Syria)’ which seems to me clear enough. Those two proposed titles are correct and neutral, whereas the extension “...of the FSA” in the current title is uncorroborated, making that current title biased.

10May2016,05:47, an Editor in the previous Talk section (above) stated that Joscelyn (LWJ,Oct2015) also refers to some “SF of the FSA”. Yes Joscelyn does, but Josc’s only corroboration for assuming the existence of some SF (as part) “of the FSA” seems to be tweets of some “Issam Al Reis” pretending to speak for “SouthernFront” saying things like “…fighting for #FSA”. Such statements of some Al Reis suggesting relation(s) between him, SF, and FSA, can’t be enough for Wiki to conclude (our) SF to be part of FSA: a neutral and reliable Wikipedia would need a statement of FSA acknowledging some group as member, before we (Wikipedia) state in our articles as a fact that that group is member of FSA.

On 20June2016, Editor abcdef added two refs to the Infobox ostensibly corroborating that SF is part of FSA. Unfortunately, I had to remove that assertion yesterday from Infobox because a Wiki article is never allowed to contradict itself—but for the sake of this discussion, please look up those two refs in the article’s version in force until yesterday morning. The first (ref 13) makes no mention at all of SF. The second (ref 14) is “Issam Al Reis” purportedly speaking about “Free Syrian Army Southern Front Spokesman Issam Al Reis”. As I argued above: a statement of some “Reis” suggesting relation(s) to exist between (him,) SF and FSA can’t serve for a neutral and independent Wikipedia as proof of the SF being part of FSA. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

So, Corriebertus, what's your opinion on the sources I listed below? Editor abcdef (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

To avoid misunderstandings: yes, I'll try to read all those sources Editor abcdef delivered, carefully, and I’ve already added a source which might also be relevant and/or reliable (and done some organizing on the listing). But that does not make any immediate difference for the situation in our article Southern Front (of the Free Syrian Army?) itself. [ (Replacing that statement(of 2July) with a more relevant statement:) Editor abcdef asks me my “opinion on sources” which he listed on Talk page. In which sense would/could/should/might I have an ‘opinion’ on them, and how would/could/should/might that opinion be relevant here? Abcdef’s listing nine links with citations from those articles, and his asking me that question, don’t yet seem to make any difference for the issue of this section: the article Southern Front (of the Free Syrian Army?) (in my argued opinion) having had an (unmotivated and uncorroborated) title change which I challenge. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC) ]
I’ve explained clearly above(30 June), that in the article until now never a proper corroboration has been presented for the assertion “Part of FSA” nor for the title change that brought “…of the FSA” into the article’s title. It is now nearly a full day since Editor abcdef listed nine ‘Viewpoints of various news sources’ on this Talk page, but he has not yet ‘updated’ the article itself.
The article as it is (especially its title, while I’ve already corrected the Infobox) therefore now does simply not comply with the requirement of verifiability. Abcdef is ofcourse free to make whatever changes he wishes in the article, based on his newly here listed ‘Viewpoints of news sources’, or based on whatever. But if he fails to do so in say the next day from now, and also no other editors change the article in the sense of underpinning that SF would be part of FSA, it will really become very urgent to change or revert the article’s title, in the sense I proposed above. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I actually agree on moving this page to "Southern Front (Syrian rebel group)", not because it's not part of the FSA but because of the same reason that the 13th Division is at 13th Division (Syrian rebel group) and not "13th Division of the Free Syrian Army". Editor abcdef (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Editor abcdef, for agreeing on the proposed reversal of the title change of 28May2015, bringing the title back to “Southern Front (Syrian rebel group)”. As soon as I’ll find the time for it, I’ll (try to) effectuate our agreed revert. I intend to insert then also a section on how various new sources have reported on an (eventual) relation with FSA. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Viewpoints of various news sources on relation SF - FSA

Sources that identify the SF as FSA

1. National Interest, 6 July 2015: "The Southern Front is a coalition of Free Syrian Army brigades"
2. Middle East Eye: "The mainly secular opposition, a collection of Free Syrian Army (FSA) brigades including the Southern Front group"
3. Now News: "The Amman-based Military Operations Center (MOC) that helps coordinate rebel operations in southern Syria has ordered Free Syrian Army-affiliated factions"
4. Rudaw: "the other notable one would be the Free Syrian Army-affiliated Southern Front"
5. Long War Journal: "The Southern Front of the Free Syrian Army"
6. News Deeply: "Free Syrian Army’s (FSA) Southern Front"
7. Reuters: "Bakour, a founder of the Free Syria Army's Southern Front alliance of rebel groups". [ All seven from Editor abcdef (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC) ]

Sources that say SF is not FSA

1. IB Times, 12 March 2016: "The Southern Front is a group consisting of former members of the Free Syrian Army"
2. South Front: "The so-called “Southern Front of the Free Syrian Army”, indeed, isn’t a part of the FSA." If you look at this link, you can clearly see that it's heavily pro-government and pro-Russia, therefore classifies as an unreliable fringe source. Editor abcdef (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
3. NRC Handelsblad, 10 October 2015 (NRC Handelsblad is considered one of the Dutch quality papers; this was presumably the last time the mentioned SF in their paper), writes: “Saudi Arabia (…) increases its weapons deliveries to Syrian rebels. That concerns three different groups: Jaish al-Fatah, the Free Syrian Army, and the Southern Front.” --Corriebertus (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for lead section

[ replaced from section 'Revert/change article's title...' where it was off-topic, on 5Jul by Corriebertus: ]

• Suggestion Per Viewpoints of various news sources above: why not add a sentence to the lede, along the lines of:
  While most sources describe the Front as part of, or "affiliated" with the Free Syrian Army, some have indicated it "consisting of former members" of the FSA or is a separate group. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC) (editor is a volunteer with feedback request service )

This looks good, at least until we can clarify what the FSA is and isn't. Bulbajer (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

BoogaLouie asks: "why not?" First of all: because I see no corroboration for the assertion that "most sources" do this or that. Secondly: BL tries to split up the many existing descriptions of some relation SF-FSA in two arbitrary groups: "while ...[= group 1], some have ... [= group 2]". I think, my newly started section Relation with the FSA shows a wide variety in such descriptions; I don't see a need, nor logic, for (arbitrarily) dividing those in two groups. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm following the list of "Viewpoints of various news sources on relation SF - FSA", which indicates that more sources describe the Front as part of or "affiliated" with the Free Syrian Army, than indicated it "consisting of former members" of the FSA or is otherwise not part of the FSA. Do you have information demonstrating otherwise?

Do you really think that grouping statements that say something is "part of" or "affiliated with" (rather than formerly part of) is arbitrary? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this still a thing?

Does Southern Front still exist or has it ceased to exist since rebels have surrendered in southern Syria? If it no longer exists, the present tense describing the group in the article should be changed to the past tense. 109.60.36.217 (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Since it’s component groups have either surrendered, reconciled or gone to Idlib, I am inclined to believe the Southern Front is defunct. Cupofteaguy (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Bulbajer (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)